Introduction

The typology and semantics of locative

predicates: posturals, positionals,
and other beasts
FELIX K. AMEKA AND STEPHEN C. LEVINSON

1. The linguistic interest of positional verbs

This special issue is devoted to a relatively neglected topic in linguistics,

namely the verbal component of locative statements. English tends, of
course, to use a simple copula in utterances like ‘‘The cup is on the table’’,
but many languages, perhaps as many as half of the world’s languages,
have a set of alternate verbs, or alternate verbal a‰xes, which contrast
in this slot.1 Often these are classificatory verbs of ‘sitting’, ‘standing’
and ‘lying’. For this reason, perhaps, Aristotle listed position among his
basic (‘‘noncomposite’’) categories:
Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality,
relation, place, time, position, state, action, or a¤ection. To sketch my meaning
roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms
as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’,
‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half ’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in
the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’,
under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’,
state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, a¤ection.
(Aristotle: Categories: Part 4) [emphasis added FKA and SCL]
At their most exuberant (and good examples can be found in the papers
in this issue), these systems of contrasting verbs clearly impose some kind
of categorization on their arguments, and thus on the world. Let us illus-
trate with an example. In the Papuan language Yélı̂ Dnye (Levinson
2000b, 2006: 173–183), there are a set of just three verbs, ‘‘sit’’, ‘‘stand’’
and ‘‘hang’’, which e¤ectively classify both abstract and concrete nominal
concepts, according to which verb they take in both existential and loca-
tive statements. There is no copula, and no way to avoid such a choice.
You simply have to know that the sun ‘sits’, but stars ‘stand’, or hunger
‘hangs’ while sleep ‘sits’, or steam ‘stands’ while smoke ‘hangs’. Even
for animates, things are not straightforward, humans canonically ‘sit’,
but most other animals ‘stand’. What if the human is standing? Then of

Linguistics 45–5/6 (2007), 847–871 0024–3949/07/0045–0847

DOI 10.1515/LING.2007.025 6 Walter de Gruyter
848 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

course he can be described as ‘standing’ — and this flexibility of use is

typical of such positional verbs. So how do we know what the canonical
(unmarked, basic) collocation is? For novel objects there is an algorithm
based on physical properties, showing that the system is semantically
based, and not a grammatical classification of nouns (Levinson 2006:
179). But, in general, if you try to formulate a negative existential like
‘‘There are no humans on that island’’, the ‘sit’ verb has to be used, and
this trick will establish the default collocations for all other nominals too.
Although the details di¤er from language to language, the idea of some
kind of default collocation with pragmatically-induced variation seems
generally to hold.
This example shows that the semantics of such verbs, and indeed the
pragmatics of their nondefault collocations, are nontrivial. One might
dismiss these collocational facts as some of the minor irrationalities that
languages impose on their speakers, and which make second languages so
hard to learn (for such systems rarely match even across closely related
languages: see Newman 2002). But in fact these semantic parameters
show up elsewhere in the linguistic system. For example, in Yélı̂ Dnye,
there are other sets of (underived, independent) triplet verbs that corre-
spond semantically to the three positionals: verbs of internal action
(‘stand up’, ‘sit down’, ‘make oneself hang’), verbs of putting (‘put stand-
ing’, ‘put sitting’, ‘put hanging’) and verbs of taking (‘take a sitting thing’,
‘take a standing thing’, ‘take a hanging thing’) (Levinson forthcoming).
They even seem to show up in gestures when talking of e.g., putting and
taking things. So there is reason to think that the categorization that these
verbs impose has cognitive consequences.
The Yélı̂ Dnye verbs form a special word class which suppletes on
subject number and tense, although they otherwise do not seem to have
widespread grammatical repercussions. But in many languages these
verbs have taken on a grammatical life of their own. For example, in
Goemai (Hellwig 2003) the positional verbs are grammaticalized in de-
monstratives and presentatives, resultative serializations, and progressive
aspect constructions. These kinds of grammaticalizations have been one
main reason that these contrastive locative verbs have been studied in
the past (see the next section). Our interest here is in the synchronic pat-
terning of these locative verbs, and in particular on the semantic contrasts
they make.
One special reason to be interested in these verbs is that their role in
the semantics of locative expressions has been largely ignored. Take the
example of the influential article by Landau and Jackendo¤ (1993), in
which it is argued that there is a fundamental distinction in the semantics
of object names and locations — object names reflect detailed geometric
 Introduction 849

properties of objects (so that e.g., a cup and a mug have similar functions
but di¤erent shapes), while locational expressions are schematic in char-
acter, abstracting away from object shape (similar ideas can be found in
Talmy 2000). Landau and Jackendo¤ relate this opposition to the two
neural pathways known as the ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘where’’ systems (Ungerleider
and Mishkin 1982), suggesting that language reflects this neurocognitive
distinction. They base their linguistic generalizations on an analysis of
English spatial prepositions, arguing (true enough for English) that this
is where the spatial information is.
If one looks at other languages, one finds that spatial adpositions are
not always so bleached of precise content about Figure and Ground as En-
glish prepositions are. For example, Yélı̂ Dnye has a postposition, ‘nedê,
glossed as ‘attached by spiking’, which presupposes a scenario (given an
expression of the form: Y X-‘nedê positional) where Y is some relatively
soft material pierced by some sharp instrument which also pierces the
Ground X, thus attaching X to Y (see Levinson and Meira 2003 for ex-
plorations in the crosslinguistic semantics of spatial adpositions).
But many languages depart from these English-based expectations in
more fundamental ways, by having a full set of contrastive locative verbs,
which sometimes specify the nature of Figure and Ground in even more
precise detail. For example, the Mayan language Tzeltal has amongst its
200 odd positional verbs, the predicates pachal meaning something like
‘be located (of hemispherical container), or be located in hemispherical
container’ and mochol ‘being located (of animal lying curved on its side)’
(Brown 1994). Since there is just one noncontrastive preposition, all the
spatial information in this language is in the predicate. Again, the absence
of a copula forces a choice between these many contrastive predicates.
Systems of this kind clearly break the Landau and Jackendo¤ or Talmy
expectations about spatial language.
In this section, we have tried to motivate the interest of these contras-
tive locative verbs — they are interesting from semantic, cognitive and
grammatical points of view. The examples given, though, turn out to be
only some kinds of locative verb. And this raises the question of the
typological variation of these kinds of contrastive locative verbs in the
languages of the world, to which we turn in a later section.

2. Prior work on positional verbs

Most prior work on contrastive locative verbs has been from a language-
specific, a familial or an areal point of view. Because of their obvious
centrality in the workings of languages, contrastive spatial predicates
850 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

usually receive some attention in descriptive grammars. But these ac-

counts rarely give us more than the briefest sketch of the underlying
semantic distinctions involved, and often neglect even the grammatical
ramifications of these systems. The Americas however are something
of an exception in that there are both relatively good language specific
descriptions of the phenomena and areal surveys. For example, it is well-
known that Athabaskan languages like Navajo have elaborate sets of
argument-classifying verbs, based on detailed semantic categories, but
also that throughout North America there are many languages with ‘sit’,
‘stand’, ‘lie’ oppositions obligatory in locative descriptions (Watkins
1976; Mithun 1999: 106–117). Similarly, the Mesoamerican language
area has a ‘shape’ preoccupation, which is reflected in body part calques
and various systems of contrastive locative verbs (Campbell et al. 1986;
de Léon and Levinson 1992). The Mayan languages, for example, have a
morphological class of positional verbs, which sometimes number in the
hundreds (Brown 1994; Bohnemeyer and Brown this issue), and can be
recognized in Mayan hieroglyphics: these make very fine discriminations
of shape, posture, and position, which are quite di¤erent in kind to the
simpler ‘sit’, ‘stand’, ‘lie’ systems. Outside the Americas, discussion is
mostly confined to the regional specialists — for example, every Aus-
tralianist knows that Pama-Nyungan languages mostly have a ‘‘sit’’,
‘‘stand’’, ‘‘lie’’ opposition, but the handbooks hardly mention this (see,
however, Goddard and Harkins 2002; Reid 2002). Similar remarks prob-
ably hold for many other regions.
For African languages also, grammars are rather silent on the topic, or
when they do mention these verbs they focus not on their locative func-
tion or semantics but on how the lexical items function in the grammars.
Not until the work of Keegan (1997, 2002) on Mbay, a Nilo-Saharan lan-
guage spoken in Chad, do we get an indication that African languages
also use postural verbs to code the basic locative function. The most de-
tailed study to date of an African language in this domain is that of Hell-
wig (2003) on Goemai, a Chadic language of Nigeria (see also Hellwig
this issue). There are informal suggestions that other languages such as
the Gur language, Gurene, of Ghana also uses posture verbs in locative
constructions (Samuel Atintono p.c.).
One major collection of articles appeared in Newman 2002. This fo-
cuses on the human posture verbs ‘sit’, ‘stand’ and ‘lie’, on their anthro-
pocentric origin, the extensions of their meanings based on that origin,
and their tendency to grammaticalize into locative verbs and eventually
aspect markers. While these papers, which give much detail on a dozen
languages and more sketchy information on more, are very valuable,
they do not provide the close comparison of meanings and functions that
 Introduction 851

this special issue makes available. Further, they are restricted to just one
type of positional, derived directly from human postural verbs. But to
return to the example of Yélı̂ Dnye, this language, which opposes ‘sit’,
‘stand’ and ‘hang’ verbs, already does not fit this anthropomorphic theme
(things that ‘hang’ are bags, ropes, bats, and strips like trails and rivers,
etc., but rarely humans). And once we turn to languages with more oppo-
sitions, we leave the anthropomorphic mould far behind.
What makes the present collection special is that all the authors under-
took concerted fieldwork, specially commissioned, using the same de-
tailed checklist of features to look for, and most important, an identical
set of stimuli specially designed to explore the application of locative
verbs to varied scenarios, with di¤erent objects, in di¤erent numbers and
arrangements, in relation to di¤erent supports or Ground objects. These
stimuli sets are described below.

3. Setting up the present project

3.1. The typological predictions

The Language and Cognition Group at the Max Planck Institute for
Psycholinguistics has investigated spatial description in a wide range of
languages (see Levinson 2003; Levinson and Wilkins 2006). We early
observed the following sorts of tendencies:
In English relative location information is almost entirely packaged in the prepo-
sitional phrase with a vacuous locative verb be fulfilling the need for a (tense-
bearing) predicate. But many languages have a set of contrasting locative verbs.
Thus whereas in English we indiscriminately use locative be in The book/cup is
on the table or The key is in the lock, or The picture is on the wall, in German we
must say Das Buch liegt auf dem Tisch, Die Tasse steht auf dem Tisch, Das Bild
hängt an der Wand and Der Schlüssel steckt in dem Schloss, the distinctions encod-
ing geometric properties of the Figure (whether the object is flat or has a canoni-
cal base etc.) or the Ground (whether it is a container, a vertical surface, etc.) or
of the relation between them. Some languages carry such distinctions to the
extreme: thus Tzeltal forces a choice between over one hundred commonly used
locative predicates, each of which encodes especially properties of the Figure ob-
ject (shape, disposition, angle etc.) or occasionally of the Ground or the relation
between Figure and Ground. This then takes the burden of locative description o¤
the adpositional phrase — in Tzeltal there is a vacuous preposition corresponding
to the English vacuous locative verb. (Levinson 1992: 29)

As good usage data from various languages like Yélı̂ Dnye and Tzeltal
became available, we developed this incipient typology into a quite
852 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

extended set of generalizations and predictions. We present these at three

levels in the schemas in (1), (4), (5), (6) and (7) with attendant discussion.
Since we shared these predictions with the authors of the papers in this
issue and asked them to check many aspects of these predictions, we
need to repeat the details here. But the reader should be forewarned that
not all the predictions have been confirmed.
The original hypothesis about the main types of locative construction
in the worlds’ languages is presented in (1).2 At a gross level, this is noth-
ing more than a count of the number of contrasting locative verbs in a
language: none, one, around three to five, six or more. But such an ac-
count actually relies on a clear context of use. Three kinds of di‰culties
immediately appear.
(1) Four basic types of locative predication in an unmarked locative
statement
Type 0: No verb in basic locative construction: Saliba
Type I: Single locative verb (or suppletion under grammatical
conditioning)
Type Ia: Copula (i.e., dummy verb used in many other
constructions): English, German, Tamil
Locative/existential predicate: Yucatec
Type Ib: Locative verb determined by grammatical
categories: Japanese, Chinese (Turkish)
Type II: Large or unlimited set of positional verbs: Likpe,
Tzeltal, Zapotec
Type III: Small, contrastive set of Posture or Positional verbs:
Guugu Yimithirr, Rossel, Dutch, Arrernte
The first di‰culty concerns stylistic variation. For example, in English
it is entirely natural to say The cathedral stands in the heart of the old
city, as can be verified in any guidebook. However, it would not be col-
loquial, in response to a where-question like Where is the cathedral? to
respond it stands in the heart of the old city, as opposed to something
like it’s in the centre of town. We call this latter use, in the context of a
where-question, the basic locative construction (BLC) (see Levinson
and Wilkins 2006: 15–17 for more detail), and all the generalizations we
make here (and most in the papers below) hold for this particular kind
of language usage. The BLC is typified by a distinctive set of locative
verbs(s), and an oblique NP indicating the Location (obliqueness marked
by adposition, case, adverbializer).3 Where two or more constructions
might be candidates for identification as the BLC, we recommended to
our authors that they examine how they were used to describe stereo-
typical vs. exceptional scenes, which construction was used in negative
 Introduction 853

BLC less likely

G
I Piercing
II Firm attachment/encirclement
III Negative space
IV Part/whole
V Clothing/adornment

G
VI Moveable objects
More likely BLC encoding
Figure 1. Basic locative construction or localizability hierarchy

locative statements, and the frequency of use in the stimuli descriptions

we asked for.
A second di‰culty is that even when there is a clear intuition that
a particular construction is the basic locative construction, there will be
many occasions where it will not be used for more systemic reasons. For
example, it is frequently found that languages will not use a locative con-
struction at all to describe a ring on a finger, or a paper skewed on a nail
— many languages here call for a resultative construction of some sort.
We proposed, following ideas of David Wilkins, a hierarchy of situation
types in which the BLC was more — or inversely less — likely to be used
(see Levinson and Wilkins 2006: 15–17, 514–519). In the hierarchy (Fig-
ure 1), a small, manipulatable, freely moveable item on or in a restricted
surface or space was hypothesized to be the most likely kind of scene to
get coded with the BLC. In contrast, items attached by piercing or encir-
cling were thought to be the least likely scenes to be so coded, because
other constructions (like resultatives) would invade this end of the contin-
uum. With such a crosslinguistic generalization, then, one can still hold
on to the notion of a BLC even in a language where many scenes are
coded otherwise. One of the outcomes of this project is that this hierarchy
in fact needs some revision (see Section 4).
The third di‰culty concerns distinguishing full from elliptical construc-
tions. Many languages permit locative structures without verbs, e.g., in
Tamil the BLC has an optional BE-verb (which is obligatory in the exis-
tential) with an obligatory oblique NP (case marked, þ/
postposition).
Very natural then would be the following exchange:
(2) a. Ramu enke?
Ramu where
‘where is Ramu’
b. Ramu tooTTattile (irukkiratu)
Ramu garden-LOC (is)
‘Ramu is in the garden’
854 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

One has to decide then whether the copula is the core construction, with
pragmatic reduction, or not. Where we have quantitative data, it doesn’t
always help us decide. For example, the Australian language Guugu Yi-
mithirr has a ‘sit’, ‘stand’, ‘lie’ opposition available, but when one of the
stimuli sets described below (TRPS) was described, we obtained the fol-
lowing results (Levinson unpublished data):
(3) Positional verbs 45% of stimuli
No verb 41%
Other construction 14%
The decision has to be made (a) on the basis of whether a verb is avail-
able for colloquial use, (b) on a sense of whether using a verb communi-
cates a marked message or unusual scenario (as would be expected if the
no-verb utterance is basic — see Levinson 2000a for the pragmatic theory
here).
With these two restrictions, the typology in (1) seems to ‘‘bite’’. A cou-
ple of further points, though, need to be made. First, as far as we know,
each of the four types of locative expression may or may not, according
to language, be shared by the existential construction in that language.
This dovetails with Clark’s (1978) typological generalization that two
thirds of languages tend to use the same verbs in both the locative and
existential constructions.
Second, as far as we know, all languages have human posture verbs,
i.e., verbs of the kind ‘sit’, ‘stand’, ‘lie’, ‘squat’, ‘kneel’, etc. (Not all have
the same semantic inventory as our own verbs — Yélı̂ Dnye for example
does not have a verb of lying.) But their role in these systems is various.
Many postural verbs have no extended locative uses (‘kneel’, ‘squat’ may
be such verbal notions with little locative appeal). Nevertheless, many hu-
man postural verbs often play, or have in the past played, a crucial role in
the system of locative verbs. They may often be the diachronic source for
currently bleached copulas (as is true for many Indo-European copulas).
There are likely to be some human posture verbs in the Type II ‘‘large
set’’ positional verbs, while in the Type III or ‘‘small set’’ positional verbs
they are often the principal (see Newman 2002) but often not the only
source (as in Yélı̂ Dnye ‘hang’). Why the prevalence of human posture
notions in location statements? A plausible hypothesis is that there are
two kinds of basic strategy for indicating where things are: (a) say where
it is, (b) say what it looks like, so the inquirer can find it. The lan-
guages that go to great lengths to indicate shape and postural configu-
ration, such as the Type II languages like Tzeltal, often have weak direc-
tional specifications — e.g., in Tzeltal only one preposition. Human
posture is one natural metaphor for shape configuration. The degree to
 Introduction 855

which human postures are generalized to cover inanimate subjects seems

related to the type of system: a generalization we call ‘‘Ameka’s conjec-
ture’’ is that the further down the types one goes, from Type I to Type II
to Type III, the more likely it is that inanimates will collocate with hu-
man posture verbs.4
Let us now say a little bit about each of these types of locative predi-
cate. The hypotheses we had developed for each type of locative on
the basis of limited languages in advance of the project are presented in
summary form in (4)–(7), followed by a text explaining these in more
detail.
(4) Type 0 (verbless) locative constructions — some predictions
1. Although languages may have this as the most frequent form of
the locative, no language has a verbless construction as the
exclusive means of locative statements — that is, a verbal form
always competes (cf. Stassen 1997: 585–586);
2. Where a verbless structure competes with a ‘‘verby’’ one, the
verbless structure will be favored in descriptions of stereotypical
situations (Levinson’s pragmatic prediction 2000a, 2000b);
3. Languages which favor unmarked Ground nominals (no case
or adposition) will not permit verb deletion (otherwise no
marker of locativeness will be left). Languages which do not
allow locative verb deletion will in certain stereotypical
circumstances allow contraction of the Ground phrase, e.g.,
adposition/locative-case deletion (Dutch thuis ‘at home’),
article deletion (English at school ), etc. (Levinson’s pragmatic
prediction 2000a).
Our predictions over languages with verbless locatives are outlined in (4).
Stassen (1997: 233¤ ) suggests that these may not occur at all — that is,
that any verbless construction would always alternate with a verbal pred-
icate construction (cf. the facts for Guugu Yimithirr and Tamil above).
The rest of the predictions suggest that any verbless strategy will contrast
pragmatically with a verbal one, and that the way the Ground is marked
may a¤ect the possibilities of verb deletion.
Our expectations about single-verb locative constructions are outlined
in (5). (Recollect that we include here languages with more than one
verb if the choice of verb is determined by grammatical categories rather
than shape or spatial properties.) These were not the focus of the present
project, but issues quickly arose concerning, for example, the use of
postural positionals in German which are quite far-reaching, but yet do
not have the obligatory character of such positionals in Dutch. For in
German the positionals compete with the copula sein, along the lines
856 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

sketched in point 4 in (5) (we owe this general hypothesis to Jürgen

Bohnemeyer). One is thus unable to study the use of positionals in many
languages without considering the competition between the single verb
strategy and the multiverb strategy.

(5) Type I locatives with a single locative verb — some predictions

1. This is perhaps a minority strategy in the languages of the
world;
2. Single locative verbs often extend their functions to become
support verbs for nominal and adjectival predications, i.e.,
become copulas;
3. Single locative verbs and copulas often derive diachronically
from postural or positional verbs (e.g., estar from *sta- ‘stand’),
drawing their suppletive stems from the older set of verbs;
4. Such single locative predicates may often be under pressure
from extended uses of human posturals, with postural
positionals invading the following hierarchy of Figure objects in
locative constructions, from the animate end — thus o¤ering
an e¤ective division of labor as in German:
Figural hierarchy
animates > free objects on surfaces > contained objects >
attached objects
Postural verbsƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ!
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒCopula

We come now to the heart of the current enterprise, which is the contrast
between languages with a small set of positionals (often drawn from the
human postural verbs) and the languages with large sets of descriptive
positionals which are de rigueur in locative expressions. On the basis of
earlier work, we had noted a number of contrasts, which are summarized
in (6) and (7).
For the languages with multiple (six or more) verbs in opposition, we
had the Mayan languages in mind (see, e.g., Brown 1994) as our proto-
type, and had made rather detailed predictions about their properties as
in (6). We suggested that specific linguistic ecologies motivate these sys-
tems, namely nominal semantics lacking individuation, and the lack of a
developed adpositional system making topological spatial contrasts. As
general characteristics we suggested that these systems therefore con-
tained very specific information about the properties of the Figure object
(the subject of the clause) and had an assertional force about the current
shape/disposition of the Figure.
 Introduction 857

(6) Type II: languages with large sets of contrastive locative verbs
(‘‘dispositionals’’)
1. One general verb, or another verb like an existential predicate,
can be used if none of the more specific dispositional verbs is
relevant (as in ‘‘What’s in the cupboard?’’). The general verb
may be deployed more with abstract nominals, location in large
scale space, marked tenses and aspects;
2. Some dozen of these dispositional predicates are frequent and
may have a distinct status (this may mirror the sortal vs.
mensural distinction in classifiers);
3. The use of these dispositional verbs is motivated by other
factors in the linguistic system, especially:
(a) ‘‘Mass’’-type semantics for ‘‘middle-range’’ nominals (i.e.,
nominals that refer neither to undi¤erentiated substances
like water, sand; nor to self-individuating, mobile entities
like animals). Thus given a masslike noun, e.g., ‘banana’,
a dispositional can signal whether we are talking about
banana leaves, stems or fruits
(b) Lack of a large contrastive set of adpositions or local
cases, requiring topological spatial information to be
signaled in the verb;
4. The use of one of these verbs asserts rather than presupposes
that the Figure object currently has the disposition described.
The verb is therefore nonomissible and more in focus (and thus
more stressable, more gesturable) than the copula or small-set
positionals in other languages;
5. The semantics of these verbs is often very detailed and language
specific, but the dimensions involved are likely to include:
(a) canonical vs. noncanonical position (e.g., upright vs.
nonupright, relevant e.g., to containers)
(b) for flexible, articulated objects, how flexed or folded
(c) volumetric and axial properties of objects (e.g., 1D vs. 2D
vs. 3D, solids vs. containers)
(d) single vs. multiple or mass Figures — i.e., whether the
Figure object is individuated

Lastly, turning to the small-set positional verb languages, and using lan-
guages like Yélı̂ Dnye as prototypes, (7) makes clear that we foresaw that
these have some similarities with the large-set locative verbs, but also
many detailed points of contrast. Many of these suggested contrasts have
been corroborated in one language which has both systems! This lan-
guage is Goemai, which allows both systems to coexist by restricting the
858 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

Table 1. The expected contrast between small-set and large-set positional verb languages

Small-set positionals Large-set dispositionals

Number of verbs 3–5 9–200

Role of human central marginal
posture verbs
Motivation disambiguation of general masslike nominals, lack of rich
nominals may play a role adpositions
Semantic character abstract axial/geometric much more detailed properties
properties, with some of figure object, using
functional aspects language-specific
discriminations
Truth-conditional not necessarily false if predicate false if predicate does not apply
character does not literally apply
Usage character default use presupposes rather asserts properties of the figure
than asserts properties of figure
Syntactic character well-defined form class, often form class, with less clear
with lexicalized causative boundaries; cannot be elided
counterparts; can sometimes be
elided
Classifying role verbal sortal classification of describe current situation
nominal concepts

two systems to di¤erent ecologies (Hellwig 2003). In tabular form, the

expected contrasts between the two kinds of system can be represented
as in Table 1.
(7) Type III: languages with small sets (3–5) of contrastive locative verbs
1. As with large-set locative verb systems, one more general verb,
or another verb like an existential predicate, can be used if
none of the more specific positional verbs is relevant (as in
‘‘What’s in the cupboard?’’). The general verb may be deployed
more with abstract nominals, location in large scale space,
marked tenses and aspects;
2. The presence of such a set of contrastive locative verbs may be
encouraged by, but is not dependent on, other features of the
language — for example, a range of semantically general nouns
(e.g., ‘wood/fire’, ‘river/water’, ‘tree species/fruit’), which can
be usefully disambiguated by positionals and classifiers;
3. These verbs typically draw on the human posture verbs ‘sit’,
‘stand’, ‘lie’, but often also incorporate less anthropomorphic
positionals like ‘hang’;
4. They are likely to have causative counterparts, i.e., a
contrastive set of putting verbs distinguished by the nature of
 Introduction 859

the object being placed, and they may also have a set of
parallel ‘taking’ verbs;
5. Despite the partially anthropomorphic source, the usage of the
verbs is partially or even largely determined by abstract
geometric properties of the Figure object (the subject of the
verb). For example, for physical objects, this is likely to be
based on the orientation of the maximum axis of the object
when in canonical position (i.e., the position in which an object
normally occurs, is used, or stored) — perhaps generally:
‘stand’ — when long axis is canonically vertical
‘lie’ — when long axis is canonically horizontal
‘sit’ — when there is no major axis, or object has a wide base
in canonical position
‘hang’ — when not supported from below.
As this suggests, the ‘sit’ verb is likely to be the default verb
or residual category (contrary to the ‘stand’ prediction in
Newman 2002) — the form to be employed e.g., in ‘‘What did
you say is on the table?’’ Functional factors, like having a
base, are also likely to be important. For abstract nominals
there are likely to be collocational conventions, perhaps
according to some cultural logic;
6. These verbs, forming a minor form class, have a sortal character,
i.e., they ‘‘classify’’ their subject nominal concepts by semantic
criteria, and thus constitute a kind of nominal classification;
7. What is classified is not the noun, and not primarily the
referent, but rather the ‘‘nominal concept’’ — thus the addition
of individuating classifiers or quantifiers may alter the choice of
verb;
8. Such positional verbs typically have two uses, a
presuppositional use vs. an assertional use:
(a) the presuppositional use is given by a default collocation
of nominal concept and positional, either by convention,
or in the case of physical objects by their canonical
position according to the stereotypical orientation of axes.
The test for the default collocation is use in negative
locatives (or if the language here uses the same
construction, in negative existentials): If, when you want
to deny that the bottles are on the table you have to say
‘‘The bottles are not standing on the table’’, then bottles
‘stand’ by default.
(b) The assertional use usually involves a choice of some
positional other than the default (e.g., ‘‘The bottle is lying
860 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

on the table’’), and asserts a noncanonical position for a

physical object.
In the presuppositional use, one asserts location and
‘‘presupposes’’ orientation; in the assertional use one asserts
orientation, and (perhaps) presupposes location. It follows
that in most of these languages it will not be false in answer
to a Where question to say the equivalent of ‘‘The bottles are
standing on the table’’ even if one of them is lying on its side.

3.2. The methods employed: the stimuli and their construction

Our survey of earlier work, with its relative neglect of contrastive locative
predicates, and the theoretical speculations developed in the prior section,
motivated the collection of in-depth data from a wider range of lan-
guages. It was clear that what was really lacking in earlier accounts, and
also crucial to building typological generalizations of the kind above, was
good data on the semantics of the di¤erent kinds of verbs. The area
seemed ripe for what has come to be called the ‘‘Nijmegen method’’ —
the collection of data directly in the field using standardized stimuli that
cover a shared extensional grid, allowing close and accurate comparisons
of semantic distinctions. To this end, we encouraged researchers to collect
data using two elicitation tools in particular:
(i) The Topological Relations Picture Series (TRPS) also referred to
as BowPed (after the principal designers Melissa Bowerman and
Eric Pederson) or as the ‘‘yellow book’’. TRPS is a book of 71
line drawings. Each picture shows principally two objects, one of
which is identified as the Figure object (by being colored appro-
priately, or designated by an arrow), the other the Ground. The
investigator shows e.g., a picture of a cup on a table and asks
where the Figure is (e.g., ‘‘Where is the cup’’), expecting an an-
swer that locates the Figure with respect to the Ground (e.g.,
‘‘The cup is on the table’’). Where the picture is culturally inap-
propriate, the researcher is expected to find a parallel appropriate
scenario (e.g., a gourd on a chair) and ask about that instead. The
answers are recorded and transcribed, and a good range of consul-
tants asked to do the same task.
The TRPS was originally designed to investigate the maximal
range of scenes that may be assimilated to IN- and ON-relations,
but includes a good range of other scenes that are not likely to be
so assimilated. Pictures depict e.g., a cup on table (Picture 1), or a
lamp above table (Picture 13) or a ball under chair (Picture 16),
 Introduction 861

Figure 2. Three bottles standing and four lying on table top (PSPV 46)

and so forth. The full set is published in Levinson and Wilkins

(2006: 570–574), but is also available from the Max Planck Insti-
tute for Psycholinguistics website (www.mpi.nl).
(ii) The Picture Series for Positional Verbs (PSPV) designed by the
editors with help from other colleagues (also known as the ‘‘or-
ange’’ or ‘‘red book’’). This book of 68 photos was specifically de-
signed to illuminate the hypotheses outlined in the prior section.
Nine di¤erent Figure objects (stick, ribbon, cloth, rope, cassava,
bottle, ball, beans, pot), in singles or multiples, were placed in re-
lation to seven di¤erent Grounds (table, tree branch, tree stump,
tree trunk, basket, rock, earth) in various positions (canonical vs.
noncanonical). The full set of permutations would have been too
large a set, but the chosen set included a good sampling of the
possibility space, with a specific eye on the hypotheses in the prior
section. For example, picture 46, shown in Figure 2, has three
bottles standing and four lying on a table top, whereas another,
picture 52, shown in Figure 3, has all seven lying. It was expected
that, while both large-set positional and small-set positional
862 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

Figure 3. Seven bottles lying on table top (PSPV 52)

languages would describe Figure 3 with a ‘lying’ verb, some small-

set positional verb languages would permit Figure 2 to be de-
scribed solely with a ‘stand’ verb, while no large-set positional
verb language would permit this. This proves to be true for e.g.,
Yélı̂ Dnye (as small-set language) and Tzeltal (a large set one).
The full set of photos is available from the Max Planck Institute
for Psycholinguistics Web site (www.mpi.nl).

All the contributions to this issue are based on first-hand field investiga-
tions utilizing these elicitation tools. The elicitations are supplemented by
other extensive investigations including field-site specific stimuli as well
as examination of text corpora to provide additional validation for the
focused elicitation.

4. The results — what the papers show

The studies reported on in this special issue show that the typology of lo-
cative predication presented in (1) is valid, but like any categorization
there is the need to sharpen the membership structure of each type.
 Introduction 863

Some modifications are thus needed: One ‘‘cosmetic’’ modification was

already implemented before some of the papers were finalized. Recall
that the typology is based on the number and the semantic type of predi-
cates used in the BLC. The labeling of the Types was modified to make it
a bit more iconic with the size of the number of verbs. Thus the ordering
of the ‘‘small set’’ and ‘‘large set’’ or multi verb types is reversed. The for-
mer becoming Type II and the latter Type III, as reported in Kelly and
Melinger (2001: 63), shown here in (8). A second modification relates to
the naming of the Types according to the ‘‘semantics’’ of the verbs. The
small set type has been called ‘‘postural’’ or ‘‘positional’’ while the multi-
verb type has also been called ‘‘positional’’ or ‘‘dispositional’’. The termi-
nology thus di¤ers slightly across papers (in part conforming to areal
linguistic traditions), but each paper is consistent in terms of the labeling
system used.
One result of the studies presented is that the small type and multiverb
type should also be subdivided the way Type I is to reflect the semantic
types of verbs. In terms of number of predicates in the BLC, Tidore, a
Western Papuan outlier spoken in the North Moluccas of Indonesia,
with its seven locational verbs in the BLC could be typologized as a
small-set type language. However, the verbs are not postural, rather they
express the Ground space in which the Figure can be found (van Staden
this issue). Tidore further provides evidence for a distinction between a
small-set type and a multiverb type as it has in addition to the seven
Ground space indicating locational verbs, twenty or so dispositional
and configurational verbs. The latter are used in noncanonical contexts.
Similarly, Goemai, a Chadic language of Nigeria, furnishes language
internal evidence for the small set (postural) and multiverb types, where
the former can be used presuppositionally while the latter are used as-
sertionally as had been predicted for the two types (Hellwig 2003, this
issue).

(8) Four basic types of locative predication (modifications) (languages

discussed in the contributions are italicized).
Type 0: No verb in basic locative construction
(Saliba, Austronesian, Papua New Guinea)
Type I: Single locative verb (or suppletion under grammatical
conditioning)
Ia: Copula
(i.e., dummy verbs used in many other constructions;
English, Tamil, Chukchi, Tiriyó)
Ib: Locative (þExistential) verb
(Japanese, Ewe, Yukatek, Lavukaleve)
864 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

Type II: A small contrastive set of locative verbs (3–7 verbs)

IIa: Postural verbs
(Arrernte, Dutch, Goemai)
IIb: Ground space indicating verbs
(Tidore)
Type III: Multiverb Positional verbs (a large set of dispositional
verbs, 9–100)
(Tzeltal, Zapotec, German Laz, Likpe)

This typology is supported by the fact that genetically, typologically and

areally related languages belong to di¤erent types in terms of locative
predication. As amply demonstrated by Bohnemeyer and Brown (this is-
sue), the two Mayan languages Tzeltal and Yukatek despite being geneti-
cally and typologically endowed with similar structures including a large
class of positionals, use these resources di¤erently. Yukatek is (or has be-
come) a single-verb type language that uses an existential as the predicate
in the BLC. Similarly, the closely related Germanic languages, Dutch and
German, belong to two di¤erent types. Dutch belongs to the small-set
type that uses six verbs in its BLC (see van Staden et al. (2006), who
tested some of the hypotheses in relation to Dutch). German, on the other
hand, as Kutscher and Schultze-Berndt (this issue) show, is a multiverb
language using 10 verbs in its BLC. These authors also allude to the fact
that dialects of the same language may diverge in terms of the di¤erent
sets of verbs they deploy in the BLC.
The robustness of the usage typology is also borne out by the dia-
chronic dimension. It has been known for some time that posturals de-
velop into copulas and for many languages this could have meant a shift
from the small set type to a single verb type. Impressionistically, German
is sometimes thought of in such terms, but in fact it appears that it has
moved from the Germanic postural type to a multiverb type. The types
are thus targets for the outcome of linguistic change processes, and conse-
quently it is sometimes hard to attribute a language to a single type. For
example, as Guirardello-Damian (this issue) shows, Trumai, a Brazilian
language, is a Type Ia single verb language that uses a general copula
with the option of a zero copula in its BLC. However, it is developing
into a small verb-set type of language where six postural verbs are also
used in answers to ‘‘where-search’’ questions. That is they are being used
in constructions that express the basic locative function. Both construc-
tion types, copular and postural seem to be used equally and preferences
are not clear at this stage. As Guirardello-Damian stresses, the language
is currently somewhere between a Type Ia general copula language and a
small-set type language. It may not be long before the change is complete
 Introduction 865

and the copular verb becomes a default verb in a small-set system (as our
predictions suggest).
In general, the number-of-predicates part of the typology represents
targets towards which languages may develop, even if the semantics do
not completely coincide with expectations. As Ameka (this issue) shows,
Likpe uses 15 verbs in its BLC, while a close typological and genetic
relative of Likpe, Nyagbo (James Essegbey p.c.), uses only four verbs
in its BLC in comparison. From that point of view Nyagbo belongs to
the small-set type but the verbs involved are ‘be.on’, ‘be.in’, ‘be.at’ and
‘hang’. Only the last one is postural in a sense. Such a language probably
belongs to a configurational verb subtype of the small-set languages (a
Type IIc).
We now turn to how the predictions for the di¤erent types of languages
fared in the studies. By and large, the predictions for the small-set and
multiverb types are borne out (as in [6], [7] and Table 1). Thus all the
languages reported on here which belong to these types have a general re-
sidual verb as a member of the form class. Goemai (small-set) deploys an
existential verb for this purpose. German (multiverb) uses a copula while
Laz (multiverb) has a locative copula as the general default verb but also
uses a ‘lie’ verb as a residual verb in some contexts. Similarly, Likpe (mul-
tiverb) divides the labor of the general verb among three basic topological
verbs: a ‘be.in’, ‘be.at’, and a ‘be.on’ verb. As already mentioned, Tzeltal
(a large-set language) uses an existential verb as a residual category verb.
Predictions 2 and 3 for multiverb languages (in [6]) are more applicable to
Tzeltal than to the other multiverb languages discussed in this issue. Pre-
diction 2 concerns the fact that a subset of the verbs, say a dozen or so,
are more frequent and have a special status. Apart from Tzeltal, for the
other multiverb languages discussed here — German, Laz and Likpe —
the number of verbs ranges from 10–15, yet there are subclasses that
seem more frequent and have a distinct status, as for instance the basic
topological verbs in Likpe. Prediction 3 suggests that the multiverb lan-
guages are likely to have ‘‘masslike’’ nouns. This is true of Tzeltal but
not the other languages. The second part of the prediction says that these
languages lack a large contrastive set of relational adpositions or local
cases. This is true of Tzeltal, Likpe and Laz. However German does
have a sizeable adpositional class. But this feature of German can be ex-
plained on the basis of it being more like the small set type languages in
this regard.
German is the exception to part of prediction 4 in (6). In all the multi-
verb languages the verbs assert rather than presuppose the current loca-
tion of the Figure. This is also true of Goemai’s second class of disposi-
tionals in contrast to the postural verbs in that language. Because of this
866 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

assertive use it was predicted that the verbs in the BLC of multiverb lan-
guages cannot be omitted. This is the case for all the multiverb languages
studied in this issue except German where the verbs can be omitted. In
this, German behaves again like the small set postural type languages.
For each of the multiverb languages, the studies provide detailed se-
mantics of each of the verbs. For Laz and German, the authors include
flow charts that show the principles that determine the choice of the
verbs.
The predictions for the small-set type languages of the postural type are
also borne out by Goemai and also Trumai, which is not yet a full mem-
ber of this set (see [7]). In fact prediction 3 in (7) can be more forcefully
stated: the languages draw on human posture verbs but always include
nonhuman ones also such as ‘hang’. Goemai shows that the causative
counterparts of the verbs need not be lexical, as is the case in Dutch, but
can be generated by their use in specific constructions (using, in the case
of Goemai, the serial verb construction). Both for Goemai and for Tru-
mai (an incipient small-set postural type language), the verbs classify not
the referents but the concepts and have a sortal character.
The Type 0 and Type I languages reported on here were included as a
control to test the limits of the other types. As Dunn et al. (this issue)
show, the conjecture that such languages are less likely to use human pos-
ture verbs with inanimates is not clearly supported. The Type I languages
— Tiriyó, Chukchi and Lavukaleve — show a tendency that supports the
conjecture: Tiriyó does not use human posture verbs, although it uses ad-
verbials derived from them with inanimates. Chukchi also does not use
human posture verbs with inanimates. Lavukaleve, on the other hand,
‘‘allows posture verbs with inanimates but they are rare in spontaneous
texts’’ (Dunn et al. this issue). The major challenge to the conjecture
which has been dubbed Ameka’s conjecture is Saliba, a Type 0 language.
Posture verbs can be used with a semantically delimited set of inanimate
Figures, reflecting the semantics of the posture verbs, which require
Figures with a rigid base, a vertical axis or long axis, and so forth. One
way to save the idea behind the conjecture is to restrict it by making it a
prediction for Type I languages. These languages will be less likely to
use human posture verbs; if they do then they are probably on the way
to becoming small-set type languages such as Trumai. Saliba also goes
against one of the universal tendencies proposed by Stassen. Stassen
(1997: 56) proposes that ‘‘if a language has a unique encoding of loca-
tional predicates, that encoding will involve the use of a locative verb’’.
However, Saliba has a single locational strategy which does not involve
a locative verb. Rather it involves a nonverbal particle. Type 0 lan-
guages are thus di¤erent from Type I languages, and it is necessary to
 Introduction 867

distinguish them, contra Grinevald (2006: 32) who collapses Type Ia

and Type 0 because ‘‘neither type has a verbal element carrying spatial
information’’.
Some pragmatic predictions were made concerning general presump-
tive meanings (Levinson 2000), for example prediction 2 in (4) concern-
ing Type 0 but also potentially Type I (Where a verbless structure
competes with a verby one, the verbless structure will be favored in
descriptions of stereotypical situations). The condition obtains only in
Tiriyo and Chukchi among the Type 0 and I languages. In both lan-
guages, however, it is not clear what the semantic and/or pragmatic dif-
ference is between the two structures. The Type I languages reported on
in this issue do not favor unmarked Ground phrases. Hence the prag-
matic prediction (see point 3 in [4]) that such languages would not allow
verb deletion could not be tested. However, this prediction holds for a
Type I language like Ewe (Kwa, West Africa), where prepositions are
not used to mark the Ground phrase in the BLC (see Ameka and Esseg-
bey 2006).
A related pragmatic prediction is that languages which do not allow
locative verb deletion allow the contraction of Ground phrases. This pre-
diction in itself is not limited to particular locative predication types, as
exemplified by English and Dutch in (4). Another example of this is pro-
vided by Likpe (Ameka this issue). As predicted for multiverb languages,
Likpe does not allow verb deletion. However, it allows for the deletion
of the search domain-signaling postposition, especially, when such infor-
mation can be inferred from the locative verb, thereby contracting the
Ground phrase.
By and large the studies support the predications made at the outset in
(4), (5), (6), and (7). Needless to say, these predictions still need testing
against a wider sample of languages, as, for example, with the predicted
contrastive alternation between verbless and verby structures in relation
to stereotypical situations. There is also the need to sharpen the predic-
tions for the small-set type languages whose verbs are not prototypically
of the postural type, e.g., Tidore. More languages of these other types
and of Type 0 languages should also be investigated to seal the locative
predication typology.
Finally, we turn to the BLC or localizability hierarchy outlined in Fig-
ure 1 above. The major finding from the studies in this issue is that this
hierarchy is not strictly linear. For some languages it works perfectly.
Thus in Saliba, the Type 0 language, the BLC only applies at two levels:
VI moveable objects and V clothing and adornment. Beyond this other
constructions have to be used. Similarly Lavukaleve and Chukchi Type I
languages also allow the use of the BLC in situations involving up to one
868 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

level higher in the hierarchy than that in Saliba. Then they use the BLC
for part-whole configurations between Figure and Ground (as in ‘the han-
dle is on the door’). For other languages discontinuities are reported. For
Tiriyo, the BLC is used for levels VI, V and IV as well as for IIa firm at-
tachment, but not for encirclement. It is also not used for negative spaces,
level III. For Laz, the BLC is used for the situations at the end points of
the hierarchy but not for the middle portions. Thus it is used for levels I
and II and V and VI. It is not used for situations relating to part-whole
(level IV) or negative spaces (level III). For Likpe also the BLC is not
used for levels III (negative spaces) and V (clothing and adornment).
The BLC is used in German for all levels except the encirclement one,
level IIb. One can also make finer distinctions with respect to German re-
lating to the verbs that are used. It turns out that for levels III (negative
spaces) and IV (part-whole) the only verb that can fill the BLC is the cop-
ula sein ‘be’. Other than that many situations are covered by the BLC.
The solution is to propose a nonlinear structure for the localizable situa-
tions, which allows rival constructions to preempt di¤erent parts of the
hierarchy, now conceived of more in terms of a two dimensional space
as in ‘‘semantic maps’’.
The contributions in this special issue are aimed at bringing the verbal
component in locative constructions back into descriptive and theoretical
focus. What we have focused on here is languages which have sets of
locative verbs in contrastive relationship to one another, where the con-
trasts carry spatial information. For comparative purposes there is a con-
tribution looking at the way locative descriptions operate in languages
that have no verb (e.g., Saliba) or just a single verb, in the basic locative
construction, such as Lavukaleve. This is the first article. It is followed
by three papers on languages with small contrastive locative verbs —
Goemai (Hellwig) Trumai (Guirardello-Damian) and Tidore (van Sta-
den). While Goemai and Trumai use postural verbs, the Tidore system
uses locative verbs that have frame of reference and direction semantics.
Its system is in a sense orthogonal to the rest. The next three papers deal
with languages which are multiverb languages: German (Kutscher and
Schultze-Berndt) Laz (Kutscher and Genç) and Likpe (Ameka). The issue
concludes with a comparison of two Mayan languages, Yukatek — a sin-
gle verb language — and Tzeltal a multiverb language (Bohnnemeyer and
Brown).
This special issue is the first one we are aware of that looks at the
verbal component of locative constructions from such a wide range of
typologically and genetically divergent languages using the same set of
elicitation tools and testing specific hypotheses about the consequences
of using particular types of verbs in the expression of the basic locative
 Introduction 869

function, i.e., the typical and preferred full clause response to a ‘‘where’’
search question.

Leiden University
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

Notes

1. There does not seem to be any typological database o¤ering frequencies for contras-
tive locative verbs. In our Island Melanesia typological database, covering Oceanic
and Papuan languages, 36% of 42 languages have positionals (see Dunn et al. 2005).
Correspondence address: Felix Ameka, Dept. African Languages and Cultures, Lei-
den University Centre for Linguistics, PB 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].
2. We thank David Wilkins for many ideas here.
3. Many researchers (e.g., Talmy, Jackendo¤, Stassen) claim that the oblique markers tend
to encode the spatial relationship of Figure to Ground, while the verb may or may not
encode aspects of the positioning of the Figure (but there are notable exceptions here,
e.g., Tzeltal, Brown 1994). But some languages do not mark the Location as an Oblique
NP, instead using an unmarked NP with a locative verb (e.g., Mandarin, Bambara [see
Stassen 1997: 58]), and some use (optionally, or in special conditions) a zero-predicate
with an Oblique NP (e.g., Gumbainggir, Manam, present-tense Russian, etc. [Stassen
1997: 235–237]).
4. This generalization is called ‘‘Ameka’s conjecture’’ because unlike the other hy-
potheses which were based on the behavior of posturals and positionals in the pro-
totypical languages like Dutch and Tzeltal respectively, this generalization was a
speculation based on behavior of such verbs in languages like Ewe, English (single-
verb languages) and Likpe (a multiverb language) and had not been tested on more
languages.

References

Ameka, Felix K. and Essegbey, James (2006). Elements of the Ewe grammar of space. In
Grammars of Space: Cognitive Explorations, Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins
(eds.), 359–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle. Categories, translated by E. M. Edghill, University of Adelaide, ebooks@adelaide.
etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/a8/category/html.
Brown, Penelope (1994). The INs and ONs of Tzeltal locative expressions: the semantics of
static descriptions of location. Linguistics 32(4/5) (Special issue: Space in Mayan Lan-
guages), 743–790.
Campbell, Lyle; Kaufman, Terrence; and Smith-Stark, T. C. (1986). Meso-America as a
linguistic area. Language 62(3), 530–558.
Clark, Eve V. (1978). Locationals: existential, locative and possessive constructions. In
Universals of Human Language, Volume 4: Syntax, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 85–126.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
870 F. K. Ameka and S. C. Levinson

Dunn, Michael; Terrill, Angela; Reesink, Ger; Foley, Robert A.; and Levinson, Stephen C.
(2005). Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history.
Science 309, 2072–2075.
Goddard, Cli¤ and Harkins, Jean (2002). Posture, location, existence, and states of being in
two Central Australian languages. In The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying, John
Newman (ed.), 213–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grinevald, Colette (2006). The expression of static location in a typological perspective. In
Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, Maya Hickmann and
Stephane Robert (eds.), 29–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hellwig, Birgit (2003). The grammatical coding of postural semantics in Goemai. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Keegan, John M. (1997). A Reference Grammar of Mbay. Munich: Lincom Europa.
— (2002). Posture verbs in Mbay. In The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying, John
Newman (ed.), 333–358. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kelly, Ann and Melinger, Alissa (2001). Annual Report 2001. Nijmegen: Max Planck Insti-
tute for Psycholinguistics.
Landau, Barbara and Jackendo¤, Ray (1993). What and where in spatial language and
spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16(2), 217–238.
Léon, Lourdes de and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.) (1992). Spatial Description in Mesoamer-
ican Languages. Special issue of Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommu-
nikationsforschung 45(6).
Levinson, Stephen C. (1992). Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and
conception. Pragmatics 2(1), 5–47.
— (2000a). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
— (2000b). H. P. Grice on location on Rossel Island. BLS 25, 210–224.
— (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
— (2006). The language of space in Yélı̂ Dnye. In Grammars of Space: Cognitive Explora-
tions, Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins (eds.), 157–205. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
— and Wilkins, D. P. (eds.) (2006). Grammars of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
— ; Meira, Sergio; and the Language and Cognition Group (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in
the spatial typological domain — adpositional meanings in cross-linguistic perspective:
an exercise in semantic typology. Language 79(3), 485–516.
— (i. prep.) ‘Put’ and ‘take’ in Yélı̂ Dnye. In Events of ‘‘Putting’’ and ‘‘Taking’’: A Crosslin-
guistic Perspective, A. Kopecka and B. Narasimhan (eds.). Typological Studies in Lan-
guage. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Newman, John (ed.) (2002). The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Reid, Nicholas (2002). Sit right down the back: serialised posture verbs in Ngan’gityemeri
and other Northern Australian languages. In The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and
Lying, John Newman (ed.), 239–267. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Staden, Miriam van; Bowerman Melissa; and Verhelst, Mariet (2006). Some prop-
erties of spatial description in Dutch. In Grammars of Space, Stephen C. Lev-
inson and David P. Wilkins (eds.), 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
 Introduction 871

Stassen, Leon (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic
Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ungerleider, Leslie G. and Mishkin, Mortimer (1982). Two cortical systems. In Analysis of
Visual Behavior, D. Ingle, M. D. Goodale, and R. J. W. Mansfield (eds.), 549–586. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watkins, Laurel (1976). Position in grammar: sit, stand, lie. Kansas Working Papers in
Linguistics 1, 16–40.